Observing that excluding women in live-in relationships which are “in the nature of marriage” from the protection of Section 498A IPC would amount to discriminatory treatment, the Supreme Court on Monday (August 3) held that a man in such a relationship can be prosecuted for domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court however clarified that this ruling is applicable to "live-in relationships" which qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage", where the intent to marry is established.

The Court ruled that distinguishing between a legally married woman and a woman in a relationship akin to marriage, for the purpose of protection against cruelty, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.

“When the objective of the Section 498A was to provide coverage to those cases where harassment by husband or in-laws through wilful conduct causing mental or physical injury or driving the woman to suicide, then to say that such harassment can only be caused when they are married and not before that, in our considered view, would be a case of over simplification… This distinction between “married” and “live-in relationship in the nature of marriage”, in as much as it relates to the protection envisaged by Section 498A, has no rational nexus with the object of preventing domestic violence and is as such offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”, observed a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The bench made the aforesaid observation while upholding the Karnataka High Court's decision, which refused to quash proceedings for cruelty against the petitioner-husband, who claimed exemption from prosecution under Section 498A IPC, arguing that the provision is not applicable to live-in relationships.

Upholding the continuation of a trial against the petitioner-husband, the Court gave a purposive interpretation to the word "husband" under Section 498A IPC, holding that it includes a man in a relationship in the nature of marriage. This means the provision applies to live-in relationships that qualify as "relationships in the nature of marriage" with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof.

“Section 498A is held to be applicable to “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof.”, the Court held.

The petitioner was accused of subjecting the complainant to cruelty. The petitioner contended that no valid marriage existed between them, and therefore Section 498A IPC could not be invoked. The complainant claimed that they had been in a valid subsisting marriage.

The Karnataka High Court rejected the appellant's plea for quashing of proceedings, holding that the term "husband" in Section 498A must be given a purposive and expansive construction and cannot be denied merely on the technical ground of a void marriage.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the husband filed an SLP before the Supreme Court.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Karol held that since the purpose of Section 498A is to address cruelty and harassment inflicted upon women within domestic relationships, including conduct causing physical or mental injury or driving a woman to suicide, the cruelty does not become any less harmful merely because the parties are not formally married.

Exercise of Right To Choose Partner Doesn't Mean Loss Of Right To Protection

Referring to the precedents of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017)10 SCC 1 and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368, the Court observed that when the law grants individuals the freedom to choose their relationships, it cannot deny them legal protection because of the form that relationship takes.

“Why should there be any difference in the protection that is given to a woman if she faces cruelty at the hands of the husband/partner or his family members?”, the Court questioned, while highlighting the discrimination in applicability of the provision between a married woman and a woman living in a live-in relationship in the 'nature of a marriage'.

The Court stressed that a woman who chooses to live with her partner in a live-in relationship resembling marriage cannot be left without protection against cruelty merely because the relationship lacks formal legal recognition of a marriage.

The following conclusions were drawn:

"(i) Section 498A is held to be applicable to “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof;

(ii) The “live-in relationships” protected by Section 498A, it is stated for ample clarity, are those that are between two consenting adult individuals;

(iii) The proposition of law as laid down shall be limited to Section 498A IPC only, and this extended interpretation shall not affect any other provision;

(iv) The safeguards against arrest and other factors as laid down in Arnesh Kumar supra shall be strictly applied and no person in a relationship in the nature of marriage having been accused of committing cruelty against a woman, being either the live-in partner “in the nature of marriage” or his relative, shall be arrested without preliminary enquiries."

In terms of the aforesaid, the petition was disposed of, with a note that “the discussion made herein insofar as it relates to the facts of the case is limited only to the adjudication of the appeals against denial of quashing and is not a comment on the merits of the matter.”

Cause Title: X & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashritsai Torgal, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Payal Gola, Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Ms. Kanak Bathwal, Adv. Mr. Sanidhya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Brijendra Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mrs. Seema Bengani, Adv. Mrs. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Aarushi Singh, Adv. Mr. Brijendra Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mrs. Seema Bengani, Adv. Mrs. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Aarushi Singh, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Ms. Kumari Arti, Adv. Mr. Surya Nath Pandy, AOR

For Amicus Curaie: Ms. Nina R. Nariman, Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Svarit Uniyal Mishra, Adv. Ms. Paduja Mishra, Adv.